Hi Andreas, FieldValueQuery is indeed the replacement. I you don't plan on adding other clauses to the boolean query, you can even run the FieldValueQuery directly through IndexSearcher, without wrapping it in a BooleanQuery.
The fact that you need to index doc values is related to another change in which we removed Lucene's FieldCache and now recommend to use doc values instead. Until you reindex with doc values, you can temporarily use UninvertingReader[1] to have the same behaviour as in Lucene 4.x. [1] http://lucene.apache.org/core/5_0_0/misc/index.html?org/apache/lucene/uninverting/UninvertingReader.html Le mer. 14 oct. 2015 à 12:06, Andreas Sewe <andreas.s...@codetrails.com> a écrit : > Hi, > > I am currently in the process of moving from Lucene 4.x to 5.x. As far > as I understand things, a filter like > > filter = new FieldValueFilter("name", false); > > translates to > > BooleanQuery filter = new BooleanQuery(); > filter.add(new FieldValueQuery("name"), Occur.FILTER); > > with the additional caveat that the field "name" now also needs to be > indexed as SortedDocValuesField, as otherwise the FieldValueQuery won't > work. Am I correct? What are the implications of this change, both in > term of search performance and index size (as I am adding more "fields")? > > Best wishes, > > Andreas > > -- > Codetrails GmbH > The knowledge transfer company > > Robert-Bosch-Str. 7, 64293 Darmstadt > Phone: +49-6151-276-7092 > Mobile: +49-170-811-3791 > http://www.codetrails.com/ > > Managing Director: Dr. Marcel Bruch > Handelsregister: Darmstadt HRB 91940 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
